Skip to Highlights

A firm protested the Army's award of a contract for an earthmoving trencher, contending that: (1) the Army's rejection of its basic bid as nonresponsive was improper; (2) the contracting officer gave it misleading advice as to protest procedures; and (3) the Army arbitrarily rejected its bid since the awardee's bid was similarly qualified by its literature. GAO determined that: (1) the protester was properly instructed to file its protest since it was timely filed with GAO; (2) the protester's bid was properly rejected as nonresponsive since its descriptive literature was ambiguous; and (3) the Army reasonably accepted the awardee's literature which indicated no limitation of the salient features. Accordingly, the protest was denied.